Professor Peter Illingworth: The first reprisal
In 2004 Dr Michael Cole wrote to Professor Tarnow Mordi advising him that packed cells
(and not whole blood) should be used to avoid delays in initiating what is often
an emergency treatment. He also wrote advising that
Professor Tarnow Mordi’s practices and proposed changes to the intravenous
feeding protocol were ill advised and had caused harm to babies in the past.
The email exchanges were intended to be both educational and a
warning to Tarnow Mordi about the dangers of insisting on the intended
management and protocol changes. It is unfortunate that Tarnow Mordi chose
to ignore these warnings resulting in the tragic and unacceptable delay in
treating Baby G in 2008 and various other complications.
Dr Cole did intervene to advocate on behalf of babies he felt were in danger
in the neonatal unit. Other doctors and nurses did the same. But never unnecessarily.
In late 2004 Professor Tarnow Mordi met Professor Peter Illingworth,
infertility obstetrician and director of woman’s and children’s
health, and they agreed that Tarnow Mordi should find Dr Cole ‘Unsatisfactory’
in the upcoming 2004 Performance Appraisal. Dr Cole believes that the motivation
was Tarnow Mordi’s fear of being exposed as lacking competence and his
displeasure at being corrected by doctors and nurses in the unit, especially Dr Cole.
Professor Illingworth appears to have gained the impression that Dr Cole
deliberately changed Tarnow Mordi’s management plans for babies without reason.
At the appraisal meeting between them Tarnow Mordi rated Dr Cole’s performance
as ‘meeting expectations’ or ‘exceeding expectations’ in all areas. Three issues
that had come up over the year were discussed as part of the
appraisal, some of which were untrue and none of which merited being found
‘unsatisfactory’. Tarnow Mordi found that Dr Cole’s performance was
‘Satisfactory’ and Dr Cole signed the evaluation.
Dr Cole had just time to walk back to his own office (about 12 seconds) when
Tarnow Mordi called him back. He had changed the evaluation to
‘Unsatisfactory’ after Dr Cole had signed it. Dr Cole was allowed to make a
marginal note declaring that he was dissatisfied with the evaluation process.
As a result of the unsatisfactory performance appraisal Dr Cole
was referred to Professor Peter Illingworth and Mr Roy Cordell who placed Dr
Cole on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Illingworth’s minutes of the
meeting included a statement that Dr Cole should not change other consultant’s
management unnecessarily and that Dr Cole would be evaluated in three months to
check his compliance with this requirement.
Dr Cole argued that he had never changed any consultant’s
management unnecessarily and that this issue had never been brought up before it
appeared in Illingworth’s minutes of the performance improvement plan.
When asked to provide examples of cases in which Dr Cole had changed other consultant’s
management unnecessarily Tarnow Mordi admitted that he could not provide a case in
which it had occurred. The other consultants were also asked and did not provide a case.
Illingworth was asked to provide honest minutes of the performance improvement plan
meeting, specifically addressing the fact that there had never been an occasion or a
complaint that Dr Cole changed other consultant’s management unnecessarily. Illingworth
refused.
Illingworth, whose office was on a different floor and about one kilometre away,
claimed that after Tarnow Mordi had found Dr Cole ‘satisfactory’
he and Tarnow Mordi had had a face to face meeting and had decided that the assessment should be changed to ‘unsatisfactory’. How this had occurred in twelve seconds or less
was not explained.
There was no visible response from Peter Illingworth and Mr Cordell
regarding two issues that had come up as a result of the PIP meeting.
That
1) Tarnow Mordi and another consultant were at times un-contactable or
refused to come into the hospital to manage babies they were rostered on-call to
look after and
2) that babies had already been harmed as a result of some practices being introduced \into the unit.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/no-place-for-a-baby-dysfunctional-hospital-20110522-1ez0s.html
Professor Peter Illingworth was invited to correct or comment on this page.
Professor Illingworth states:
"The documentation clearly suggests that I have been involved in a form of 'Reprisal' against you. This is utterly without foundation.
"This allegation is false and would be damaging to my character. You should be aware that any publication of this defamatory allegation, either in book form or internet may leave you and your publisher liable for future legal action for damages.
"No further correspondence will be entered into."
Professor Tarnow Mordi did not take up an invitation to correct or comment on
this page.
Previous Page Next Page
Click to follow on Twitter:
(and not whole blood) should be used to avoid delays in initiating what is often
an emergency treatment. He also wrote advising that
Professor Tarnow Mordi’s practices and proposed changes to the intravenous
feeding protocol were ill advised and had caused harm to babies in the past.
The email exchanges were intended to be both educational and a
warning to Tarnow Mordi about the dangers of insisting on the intended
management and protocol changes. It is unfortunate that Tarnow Mordi chose
to ignore these warnings resulting in the tragic and unacceptable delay in
treating Baby G in 2008 and various other complications.
Dr Cole did intervene to advocate on behalf of babies he felt were in danger
in the neonatal unit. Other doctors and nurses did the same. But never unnecessarily.
In late 2004 Professor Tarnow Mordi met Professor Peter Illingworth,
infertility obstetrician and director of woman’s and children’s
health, and they agreed that Tarnow Mordi should find Dr Cole ‘Unsatisfactory’
in the upcoming 2004 Performance Appraisal. Dr Cole believes that the motivation
was Tarnow Mordi’s fear of being exposed as lacking competence and his
displeasure at being corrected by doctors and nurses in the unit, especially Dr Cole.
Professor Illingworth appears to have gained the impression that Dr Cole
deliberately changed Tarnow Mordi’s management plans for babies without reason.
At the appraisal meeting between them Tarnow Mordi rated Dr Cole’s performance
as ‘meeting expectations’ or ‘exceeding expectations’ in all areas. Three issues
that had come up over the year were discussed as part of the
appraisal, some of which were untrue and none of which merited being found
‘unsatisfactory’. Tarnow Mordi found that Dr Cole’s performance was
‘Satisfactory’ and Dr Cole signed the evaluation.
Dr Cole had just time to walk back to his own office (about 12 seconds) when
Tarnow Mordi called him back. He had changed the evaluation to
‘Unsatisfactory’ after Dr Cole had signed it. Dr Cole was allowed to make a
marginal note declaring that he was dissatisfied with the evaluation process.
As a result of the unsatisfactory performance appraisal Dr Cole
was referred to Professor Peter Illingworth and Mr Roy Cordell who placed Dr
Cole on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Illingworth’s minutes of the
meeting included a statement that Dr Cole should not change other consultant’s
management unnecessarily and that Dr Cole would be evaluated in three months to
check his compliance with this requirement.
Dr Cole argued that he had never changed any consultant’s
management unnecessarily and that this issue had never been brought up before it
appeared in Illingworth’s minutes of the performance improvement plan.
When asked to provide examples of cases in which Dr Cole had changed other consultant’s
management unnecessarily Tarnow Mordi admitted that he could not provide a case in
which it had occurred. The other consultants were also asked and did not provide a case.
Illingworth was asked to provide honest minutes of the performance improvement plan
meeting, specifically addressing the fact that there had never been an occasion or a
complaint that Dr Cole changed other consultant’s management unnecessarily. Illingworth
refused.
Illingworth, whose office was on a different floor and about one kilometre away,
claimed that after Tarnow Mordi had found Dr Cole ‘satisfactory’
he and Tarnow Mordi had had a face to face meeting and had decided that the assessment should be changed to ‘unsatisfactory’. How this had occurred in twelve seconds or less
was not explained.
There was no visible response from Peter Illingworth and Mr Cordell
regarding two issues that had come up as a result of the PIP meeting.
That
1) Tarnow Mordi and another consultant were at times un-contactable or
refused to come into the hospital to manage babies they were rostered on-call to
look after and
2) that babies had already been harmed as a result of some practices being introduced \into the unit.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/no-place-for-a-baby-dysfunctional-hospital-20110522-1ez0s.html
Professor Peter Illingworth was invited to correct or comment on this page.
Professor Illingworth states:
"The documentation clearly suggests that I have been involved in a form of 'Reprisal' against you. This is utterly without foundation.
"This allegation is false and would be damaging to my character. You should be aware that any publication of this defamatory allegation, either in book form or internet may leave you and your publisher liable for future legal action for damages.
"No further correspondence will be entered into."
Professor Tarnow Mordi did not take up an invitation to correct or comment on
this page.
Previous Page Next Page
Click to follow on Twitter:
